document resume - eric · *evaluation, *interests, physics, *secondary school science, student...
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 046 683 SE 008 163
AUTHORTITLE
INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCYPUP DATENOTE
EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
Meyer, G. P.
Pupils, Reactions to Trial Editions of Nuffield101-Level Science Materials in 1966.Macquarie Univ., North Ryde (Australia).Nuffield Foundation, London (England) .Jan 6939n.
EDPS Price MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29*Attitudes, Biology, Chemistry, *Curriculum,*Evaluation, *Interests, Physics, *Secondary SchoolScience, Student Science InterestsEngland
Scientific attitudes and interests of fifth formstudents who had had at least two years of experimental Nuffield0-Level courses in biology, physics, and chemistry were compared withthose of equivalent students studying traditional courses. Theauthor-developed tests contained Likert-type items measuringinterests in science, attitudes to the teaching of science inparticular schools, scientific thinking and attitudes, interests inscientific hobby or leisure activities, interest in solving problemsby practical activity rather than appeal to authority, and interestin science as a body of facts. The major statistically significantresults were as follows. The Nuffield Programs: (1) improvedscientific interests and attitudes of girls, but not boys; (2)
increased interest in empiricism and science as a leisure activity,but not in scientific facts; (3) did not transfer interest in factsto other disciplines; (a) caused a decline in interest in fine-artsand literature; (5) caused a loss of scientific interest by malephysics students; (6) over-emphasized inquiry; and (7) caused anoverall improvement in scientific thinking. Hypotheses to explain thefindings were made. (AL)
re\Co
4o4-
PUPILS' REACTIONS TO TRIAL EDITIONSOF NUFFIELD 'O' -LEVEL SCIENCE MATERIALS
IN 1966
A Report to the Nuffield Foundation of an Investigation
Completed with the Aid of a Nuffield Foundation Special
Study Grant, March to August, 1966.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION& WELFARE
OFFICE OF EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCEDEXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON ORORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OFVIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECES-SARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITION OR POLICY.
NOTE:
by G.R.Meyer Ph.D.Director,Centre for Advancement of Teaching,Macquarie University,NORTH RYDE. N.S.W. 2113Australia "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY-
RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTEDBY G. R. Meyer
TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATINGUNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE U.S OFFICEOF EDUCATION. FURTHER REPRODUCTIONOUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM REQUIRES PER-MISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER
As the results of this study have not yet beenpublished, this report should not be copied orreferred to in other publications withoutpermission from both the Nuffield Foundation andthe author. Enquiries to the author.
Macquarie University, Centre for Advancement of Teaching
January 1969
**********
CC)
REACTIONS OF PUPILS TO'0' LEVEL G.C.E. NUFFIELD TRIAL MATERIALS
IN ENGLAND
CD
uJC:1
4a
RESULTS OF A PRELIMINARY RESEARCH STUDY
G.R.Meyer(+)
An investigation was made of scientific attitudes and interests amongst
fifth form secondary school pupils in England who had had at least two years
experience of a Nuffield '0'-level G,C,E, Science course since the third form (1).
Comparisons were made with equivalent pupils taking conventional science
courses for the G,C,E, (2), Interviews, tests and qLesticnneirec 7,ere
administered during the period March to August 1966,
This study was supported by a Special Study Grant from the Nuffield
Foundation (3).
Selection of Schools and Pupils
1226 fifth form pupils were included in the study, of these 546 pupils
were in the NonNuffield "control" or "traditional" group and 680 in the
Nuffield "experimental" group. All pupils in the experimental group had
studied two other science subjects, following conventional syllabuses. All
those pupils in the control traditional group were studying all three sciences,
Biology, Chemistry and Physics for the '0'-level General Certificate of
Education (G.C.E.).
The two groups were matched as closely as possible. Ages and abilities
were made closely equivalent by restricting each group to fifth form students
enrolled in two or three science subjects for '0'-level G.C.E. The types and
locations of schools were matched quite closely. For instance there were
equivalent numbers of grammar, comprehensive, maintained and public schools and
both urban and rural districts were included in each group. The proportions
of sexes in the two groups, however, were not exactly equivalent. There were
rather more boys than girls in th' experimental group and the sexes were about
equally divided in the control group - see Table 1.
(+) The Director, Centre for Advancement of Teaching,Macquarie Universit N.S,W. Australia.
-2-
Table 1. The numbers and percentages of boys ari girlsin the Control and Experimental Groups.
CONTROL EXPERIMENTAL
(Non-Nuffield) (Nuffield)i.e. Traditional
No. No.
Boys
Girls
285
261
52.2
47.8
470
210
69.1
30.9
546 100.0 680 100.0
The experimental group came from all those schools able to co-operate
from a list provided by the Nuffield Science Teaching Project. This list
included all the schools with candidates enrolled for Nuffield '0'-level G.C.E.
science papers for the examinations of June 1966. The total numbers of schools
and pupils in this group and the numbers who co-operated in the final experiment-
al study are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. The numbers of schools and pupils taking NuffieldScience Papers at the '0' -level G.C.E. Examinationsin 1966 compared with the numbers in the experimentalgroup.
Course Numbers taking Numbers in ExperimentalNuffield Courses 1966 Group
Schools * Pupils + Schools Pupils
Nuffield Chemistry 17 677 5 221
Nuffield Physics 8 257 6 209
Nuffield Biology 18 615 10 250
Totals 43 1549 21 680
* Omitting Schools with less than ten candidates.
+ All pupils entered for a Nuffield 0-level Science examinationin June 1966.
-3-
Table 2 shows that of the total available experimental population
about half was included in the study. The Nuffield Chemistry group was*)sampled from only 5 schools ( and as this is not as representative as
for the physics and biology, the chemistry results should be interpreted
with relative caution. In addition the number of girls taking Nuffield
Physics & Nuffield Chemistry were relatively small and so results involving
these sub-groups should be interpreted with this in mind.
The selection of a control group (546 pupils from eight schools) was
largely pre-determined. In an attempt to reduce the "Hawthorn" effect
(i.e. the professional bias and natural enthusiasms of a teacher who had
chosen to introduce a Nuffield Science programme), the "Control" Schools
were, with one exception, selected from those which had not yet introduced
Nuffield science, but had volunteered to act as trial schools for new
'A' -level Nuffield courses. The exceptional school was, for administrative
reasons, unable to act as a trial school for A-level but was very sympathetic
to the ideals of the Nuffield programmes. As far as possible, therefore, the
control and experimental schools, were equally matched from the point of view of
the attitude of staff to the Nuffield ideal. After other factors had been
matched the list of possible control schools reduced to the final eight.
It was felt that after this careful sampling and selection, any
significant differences detected between the scientific attitudes and interests
of pupils in the control and experimental groups could be fairly attributed to
whether or not the pupils had taken science courses designed by the Nuffield
Science Teaching Project.
Variables Measured
Pupils completed tests designed to assess levels of interest in and
attitudes towards various aspects of science in their schools. In addition,
for purposes of contrast, some assessments were mad3 of interest in non-
scientific subjects. All the tests involved the subjective rating of Likert-
type items using the method of absolute summation. All but one of these tests
are described in some detail elsewhere(4)
. The remaining test, an assessment of
* Because of administrative difficulties at the close of term, the remaining 12possible schools asked to be omitted from the survey.
-4-
sophistication in scientific attitude, was developed especially for this survey.
The tests have since been printed as a booklet(5),but are as yet unpublished.
A main score called "Scientific Orientation" or "S.0." was derived from
the tests. The S.O. score consisted of the following components.
S.O. = Interest in Science (Affective) + Attitude to theTeaching of Science in the particular School (Affective)+ Scientific Thinking or Attitude (Cognitive and Affective).The scores were on a scale from -80 to +200.
Weightings within the S.O. Score were -
Interest 44%Attitude 28%Thinking 28%
The interest component carried most weight because it was
derived from a number of sub-scores, giving greatest reliability and validity
to measures of interest.
The sub-scores 'Attitude to the Teaching of Science in the
School', and 'The Scientific Thinking (Attitude)''scores were not subdivided
further; but the sub-score "Interest in Science" was derived from the addition
of three internal scores as follows.
1. Interest in a scientific hobby or leisure. activity.
2. Interest in solving problems in science by practicalactivity in contrast to appeal to authority; that is,interest in science as a method of solving problems.
3. interest in science as a body of facts.
The test also enabled further scores to be taken out for interest in
various areas of scientific content - Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy,
Geology and History of Science. Assessment of overall interest in F:-!entific
facts was expressed as the mean of scores from these six areas.
Apart from the S.O. score and its various sub-divisions five scores
were made of interest in areas science experts considered to be "non-
scientific". These areas were interests in Fine Art and Literature as leisure-
time activities and interest in solving problems in science by appeal to
authority rather than by personal experiment, Three types of authority were
-5-
selected as possible sources of answers to problems in science - experts,
books and teachers.
The sex of the student and his ambition were noted. By ambition was
meant whether or not the student wanted to be a science major or non-science
major in his sixth form.
Table 3 lists the variables measured, gives the theoretical ranges of
scaled scores obtainable from each test, and lists the name or symbol of the
relevant sub-tests in the test booklet (6) from which the scores were derived.
Table 3. Variables Measured
Variable Scale Name and/or symbol of sub-testin Test Booklet
SCIENTIFIC
1.0 Interest in Science 0 - 120 Total Interest T1
1.1 As a leisure interest 0 - 40 School Holidays - S1
1.2 As a method of solvingscientific problems 0 - 40 Finding Out About Things - S2
1.3 As a set of facts 0 - 40 Learning Things - Mean S3
1.31 Physics facts 0 - 40 Learning Things - P1.32 Biology facts 0 - 40 Learning Things - B1.33 Chemistry facts 0 - 40 Learning Things - C1.34 Astronomy facts 0 - 40 Learning Things - A1.35 Geology facts 0 - 40 Learning Things G
1.26 Science History facts 0 - 40 Learning Things - H2.0 Scientific Thinking -.40 - +40 Talking Together T2
3.0 Attitude to Science Teachingin the School - 40 - +40 Science in Your School T
3
4.0 Ambition (1= non Science 6th2= Science 6th 1-2
5.0 Science Orientation (S.O.)1.0 (44%) + 2.0 (28%) + 3.0
- 80(28%)
-+200 T1 + T2 + T1 2
T3
NON-SCIENTIFIC
6.0 Non-Science Interests6.1 Fine Art 0 - 40 School Holidays - A6.2 Literature 0 - 40 School Holidays L
7.0 Interest in Solving Problemsby appeal to authority7.1 Asking an Expert 0 - 40 Finding Out About Things - E7.2 Reading a Book 0 - 40 .Finding Out About Things - B7.3 Asking a Teacher 0 - 40 Finding Out About Things - T
elkisentreammeminsimismoinanamemieffilliblIatemause
-6-
Administration of Tests
The pupils in both experimental and control schools were all tested
personally by the author or his representative after taking considerable care
to establish suitable rapport between test administrator and subject. The
pupils were assured of anonymity and given a guarantee that no-one in their
school would see the results trom that scLcol. All pupils responded with
interest and enthusiasm and appeared willing and anxious to express their opinions.
On-spot checks of validity were made by asking all pupils to write
essays on their attitudes and interests and by interviewing selected pupils.
All teachers involved were interviewed in depth. This qualitative data gave
assurance that the test results were highly valid.
Results
various sub-groups were identified and the following sub-groups were compared.
1. Total Boys and Total Girls.
2. Total Nuffield and Total Traditional.
3. Nuffield Biology, and Total Traditional.
4. Nuffield Chemistry and Total Traditional.
5. Nuffield Physics and Total Traditional.
6. Nuffield Boys and Traditional Boys.
7. Nuffield Biology Boys and Traditional Boys.
8. Nuffield Chemistry Boys and Traditional Boys.
9. Nuffield Physics Boys and Traditional Boys.
10, Nuffield Girls and Traditional Girls.
11. Nuffield Biology Girls and Traditional Girls.
12, Nuffield Chemistry Girls and Traditional Girls,
13. Nuffield Physics Girls and Traditional Girls.
The means and standard deviations of the scores on each of the
variables listed in Table 3 are set out in statistical tables in the Appendix.
Inter-correlations of scores of the twenty variables are also shown in the
Appendix, separately for Nuffield and Traditional pupils.
The results of comparisons between the various sub-groups are presented
in Tables 4 to 16. 1
-7-
table 4. Comparisons between boys and girls
Boys N1 = 755 Girlt N2= 471
Variable SignificanceRatio
P In Favour Of:-
SCIENTIFIC
1.0 Interest in science 4.748 0.001 Boys1.1 Leisure interest 11.087 0.001 Boys1.2 As a method 0.408 N.S.
1.3 As facts 0.133 N.S.1.31 Physics facts 11.767 0.001 Boyt1.32 Biology facts 9.673 o,,00l Girls1.33 Chemistry facts 7.273 0.001 Boys1.34 Astronomy facts 0.188 N.S.1.35 Geology facts 2.523 0.02 Girls1.36 Science history
facts 5.655 0.001 Girls2.0 Scientific thinking 0.131 N.S.3.0 Attitude to school science 4.396 0.001 Boys4.0 Scientific ambition 4.250 0.001 Boys
5.0 Science orientation (S.0.) 4.438 0.001 Boys(1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0)
NON-SCIENTIFIC
6.0 Non-science interests6.1 Fine art 13.510 0.001 Girls6.2 Literature 15.631 0.001 Girls
7.0 Interest in solving prob-lems by appeal to authorit7.1 Consulting expert 0.475 N.S.
7.2 Reading a book 1.748 N.S.7.3 Asking a teacher 4.404 0.001 Girls
table 5.
-8-
Comparisons between Nuffield (Experimental) pupilsand Traditional (Control) pupils.
Nuffield N1
= 690 Traditional N2
= 546
Variable SignificanceRatio
P In Favour Of:-
SCIENTIFIC
1.0 Interest in science 3.114 0.01 Nuffield1.1 Leisure interest 3.063 0.01 Nuffield1.2 As a method 3.689 0.001 Nuffield1.3 As facts 0.100 N.S.
1.31 Physics facts 1.684 N.S.1.32 Biology facts 0.078 N.S.1.33 Chemistry facts 1.855 N.S.1.34 Astronomy facts 0.021 N.S.1.35 Geology facts 1.399 N.Z.1.36 Science history
facts 1.688 N.S.2.0 Scientific thinking 3.579 0.001 Nuffield3.0 Attitude to school science 2.477 0.02 Nuffield4.0 Scientific ambition 4.308 0.001 Nuffield
5.0 Science orientation (S.0) 3.388 0.001 Nuffield(1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0)
NON SCIENTIFIC
6.0 Non-science interests6.1 Fine art 2.900 0.01 Traditional6.2 Literature 1.572 U.S.
7.0 Interest in solving prob-lems by appeal to authority7.1 Consulting expert 0.025 N.S.7.2 Reading a book 3.175 0.01 Traditional7.3 Asking a teacher 4.417 0.001 Traditional
-9-
table 6. Comparisons between pupils taking Nuffield Biologyand Traditional Science.
Nuffield Biology N1 = 250 Traditional N2
= 546
Variable SignificanceRatio .
P In Favour Of:-
SCIENTIFIC
1.0 Interest in science 0.473 N.S.1.1 Leist.re interest 1.109 N.S.1.2 As a method 2.832 0.01 Nuffield Biology1.3 As facts 1.075 N.S.
1.31 Physics facts 1.501 N.S.1.32 Biology facts 3.136 0.01 Nuffield .,J 3logy1.33 Chemistry facts 0.357 N.S.1,34 Astronomy facts 2.697 10.01 Traditional1,35 Geology facts 1.407 N.S.1.36 Science history . . .
facts 0.893 N.S.2.0 Scientific thinking 3.117 0.01 Nuffield Biology3.0 Attitude to school science 0.936 N.S.4.0 Scientific ambition 3.048 0.01 Nuffield Biology
.0 Science orientation (S.0.) 1.330 N.S.(1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0)
ION SCIENTIFIC
6.0 Non-science interests6.1 Fine art 1.616 N.S.6.2 Literature 0.500 N.S.
.0 Interest in solving prob-lems by appeal to authority7.1 Consulting expert 1.059 N.S.7.2 Reading a book 2.627 0.01 Traditional7.3 Asking a teacher 2.988 0.01 Traditional
10
-10-
table 7. Comparisons between pupils taking Nuffield Chemistryand Traditional Science.
Nuffield Chemistry N1 = 221 Traditional Science N2
= 546
1
Variable r.ignificanceRatio
I
P In Favour Of:-
SCIENTIFIC
1.0 Interest in science 6.151 0.001 Nuffield Chemistry1.1 Leisure interest 7.303 0.001 Nuffield Chemistry1.2 As a method 3.463 0.001 Nuffield Chemistry1.3 As facts 2.150 0.05 Nuffield Chemistry
1.31 Physics facts 3.936 0.001 Nuffield Chemistry1.32 Biology facts 1.186 N.S.1.33 Chemistry facts 4.514 0.001 Nuffield Chemistry1.34 Astronomy facts 1.501 N.S.1.35 Geology facts 1.067 N.S.1.36 Science history
facts 1.342 N.S.2.0 Scientific thinking 3.333 0.001 Nuffield Chemistry3.0 Attitude to school science 4.493 0.001 Nuffield Chemistry4.0 Scientific ambition 2.997 0.01 Nuffield Chemistry
5.0 Science orientation (S.0.) 5.858 0.001 Nuffield Chemistry(1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0)
NON SCIENTIFIC
6.0 Non-science interests6.1 Fine art 2.497 0.02 Traditional6.2 Literature 3.440 0.001 Traditional
7.0 Interest in solving prob-lems by appeal to authority7.1 Consulting expert 1.521 N.S.7.2 Reading a book 0.154 N.S.7.3 Asking a teacher 2.334 0.02 Traditional
11
table 8. Comparisons between pupils taking Nuffield Physicsand TraditiOnal Science.
Nuffield Physics N1 = 209 Traditional N2
= 546
Variable SignificanceRatio
P In Favour Of:-
SCIENTIFIC
1.0 Interest in science 0.774 N.S.1.1 Leisure interest 1.277 N.S.1.2 As a method 1.078 N.S.1.3 As facts 0.604 N.S.
1.31 Physics facts 1.616 N.S.1.32 Biology facts 2.083 0.05 Traditional1.33 Chemistry facts 0.289 N.S.1.34 Astronomy facts 1.443 N.S.1.35 Geology facts 2.727 0.01 Traditional1.36 Science history
facts 1.522 N.S.2.0 Scientific thinking 1.267 N.S.3.0 Attitude to school science 0.358 N.S.4.0 Scientific ambition 3.475 0.001 Nuffield Physics
5.0 Science orientation (S.0.) 0.691 N.S.(1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0)
NON SCIENTIFIC
6.0 Non-science interests6.1 Fine art 2.229 0.05 Traditional6.2 Literature 0.648 N.S.
7.0 Interest in solving prob-lems by appeal to authority7.1 Consulting expert 0.341 N.S.7.2 Reading a book 4.383 0.001 Traditional7.3 Asking a teacher 3.969 0.001 Traditional
12
table 9.
-12-
Comparisons between boys taking Nuffield Scienceand boys taking Traditional Science.
Nuffield Boys N1 = 470 Traditional Boys N2 = 285
Variable SignificanceRatio
P In Favour Of:-
SCIENTIFIC
1.0 Interest in science 0.023 N.S.1.1 Leisure interest 0.724 N.S.
1.2 As a method 1.933 N.S.
1.3 As facts 1.553 N:S:1.31 Physics facts 1.976 0.05 Traditional Boys1.32 Bi.)logy facts 0.775 N.S.1.33 Chemistry facts 1.079 N.S.1.34 Astronomy facts 1.727 N.S.1.35 Geology facts 1.727 N.S.1.36 Science history
facts 2.399 0.02 Traditional Boys2.0 Scientific thinking 1.491 N.S.3.0 Attitude to school science 0.408 N.S.4.0 Scientific ambition 0.535 N.S.
5.0 Science orientation (S.0.) 0.050 N.S.(1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0)
NON SCIENTIFIC
6.0 Non-science interests6.1 Fine art. 0.995 N.S.6.2 Literature 0.931 N.S.
7.0 Interest in solving prob-lems by appeal to authorit7.1 Consulting expert 0.511 N.S.
7.2 Reading a book 2.212 0.05 Traditional Boys7..3 Asking a teacher 2.208 0.05 Traditional Boys
table 10.
-13-
Comparisons between boys taking Nuffield Biologyand boys taking Traditional Science.
Nuffield Biology Boys N1 = 131 Traditional Boys N2 = 285
F
Variable SignificanceRatio
P In Favour Of:-
CIENTIFIC
1.0 Interest in science 0.427 N.S.1.1 Leisure interest 0.930 N.S.1.2 As a method 2.371 0.02 Nuffield Biology Boys1.3 As facts 0.946 N.S.
1.31 Physics facts 1.720 N.S.1.32 Biology facts 3.969 0.001 Nuffield Biology Boys.1.33 Chemistry facts 0.251 N.S.1.34 Astronomy facts 3.115 0.01 Traditional Boys1.35 Geology facts 2.194 0.05 Traditional Boys1.36 Science history
facts 0.029 N.S..0 Scientific thinking 2.145 0.05 Nuffield Biology Boys.0 Attitude to school science 0.079 N.S.
4.0 Scientific ambition 2.741 0.01 Nuffield Biology Boys
.0 Science orientation (S.0.) 0.646 N.S.(1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0)
ON SCIENTIFIC
6.0 Non-science interests6.1 Fine art 0.742 N.S.6.2 Literature 0.248 N.S.
7.0 Interest in solving prob-lems by appeal to authority7.1 Consulting expert 0.625 N.S.7.2 Reading a book 1.179 N.S.7.3 Asking a teacher 1.700 N.S.
14
table 11.
-14-
Comparisons between boys taking Nuffield Chemistryand boys taking Traditional Science.
Nuffield Chemistry Boys N1 = 169 Traditional Boys N2 = 285
Variable SignificanceRatio
P In Favour Of: ;-
SCIENTIFIC
1.0 Interest in science 3.053 0.01 Nuffield Chemistry Boys1.1 Leisure interest 3.607 0.001 Nuffield Chemistry Boys1.2 As a method 2.926 0.01 Nuffield Chemistry Boys1.3 As facts 0.292 N.S.
1.31 Physics facts 0.566 N.S.1.32 Biology facts 0.866 N.S.1.33 Chemistry facts 1.767 N.S.1.34 Astronomy facts 0.288 N.S.1.35 Geology facts 0.161 N.S.1.36 Science history
facts 0.108 N.S.
2.0 Scientific thinking 1.943 N.S.
3.0 Attitude to school science 2.113 0.05 Nuffield Chemistry Boys4.0 Scientific ambition 0.306 N.S.
5.0 Science orientation (S.0.) 2.911 0.01 Nuffield Chemistry Boys(1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0)
NON SCIENTIFIC.. ion- science interests
6.1 Fine art 0.397 N.S.
6.2 Literature 1.043 N.S.
7.0 Interest in solving prob-lems by appeal to authority7.1 Consulting expert 2.131 0.05 Nuffield Chemistry Boys7.2 Reading a book 0.500 N.S.7.3 Asking a teacher 0.909 N.S.
IS
-15-
table 12. Comparisons between boys taking Nuffield Physicsand boys taking Traditional Science,
Nuffield Physics Boys N1 = 170 Traditional Boys N2 = 285
Variable SignificanceRatio
P In Favour Of :-
1
SCIENTIFIC
1.0 Interest in science 2.812 0.01 Traditional Boys1.1 Leisure interest 3.725 0.001 Traditional Boys1.2 As a method 0.489 M.S.1.3 As facts 2.678 0.01 Traditional Boys
1.31 Physics facts 3.079 0.01 Traditional Boys1.32 Biology facts 0.752 N.S.1.33 Chemistry facts 3.518 0.001 Traditional Boys1.34 Astronomy facts 0.788 N.S.1.35 Geology facts 3.438 0.001 Traditional Boys1.36 Science history
facts 0.260 N.S.2.0 Scientificthihking 0.441 N.S.3.0 Attitude to school science 2.705 0.01 TraditiOnal Boys4.0 Scientific ambition 0.854 N.S.
5.0 Science orientation (S.0.) 2.807 0.01 Traditional Boys(1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0)
NON SCIENTIFIC
6.0 Non-science interests6.1 Fine art 2.203 0.05 Nuffield Physics Boys6.2 Literature 2.774 0.01 Nuffield Physics Boys
7.0 Interest in solving prob-lems by appeal to authority7.1 Consulting expert 0.357 N.S.7.2 Reading a book 3.995 0.001 Traditional Boys7.3 Asking a teacher 2.219 0.05 Traditional Boys
table 13.
-16-
Comparisons between girls taking Nuffield Scienceand girls taking Traditional Science.
Nuffield Girls N1
= 210 Traditional Girls N = 261
Variable SignificanceRatio
P In Favour Of:-
SCIENTIFIC
1.0 Interest in science 3.809 0.001 Nuffield Girls1.1 Leisure interest 2.979 0.01 Nuffield Girls1.2 As a method 3.626 0.001 Nuffield Girls1.3 As facts 2.358 0.02 Nuffield Girls
1.31 Physics facts 2.129 0.05 Nuffield Girls1.32 Biology facts 1.686 1 N.S.1.33 Chemistry facts 2.407 10.02 Nuffield Girls1.34 Astronomy facts 2.246 0.05 Nuffield Girls1.35 Geology facts 1.614 N.S.1.36 Science history . . .
facts 0.975 N.S.2.0 Scientific thinking 3.846 0.001 Nuffield Girls3.0 Attitude to School science 3.488 0.001 Nuffield Girls4.0 Scientific ambition 4.729 0.001 Nuffield Girls
5.0 Science orientation (S.0.) 4.413 0.001 Nuffield Girls(1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0)
NON SCIENTIFIC
6.0 Non-science interests6.1 Fine art 2.204 0.05 Traditibnal Girls6.2 Literature 0.313 N.S.
7.0 Interest in solving prob-lems by appeal to authority7.1 Consulting expert 0.855 N.S.7.2 Reading a book 1.875 N.S.7.3 Asking a teacher 5.064 0.01 Traditional Girls
'7
table 14.
-17-
Comparisons between girls taking Nuffield Biologyand girls taking Traditional Science.
Nuffield Biology Girls N1 = 119 Traditional Girls N2 = 261
Variable SignificanceRatio
P In Favour Of:-
SCIENTIFIC
1.0 Interest in science 0.237 N.S.1.1 Leisure interest 0.753 N.S.1.2 As a method 1.625 N.S.1.3 ts facts 0.775 N.S.
1.31 Physics facts 0.530 N.S.1.32 Biology facts 0.099 N.S.1.33 Chemistry facts 0.309 N.S.1.34 Astronomy facts 0.593 N.S.1.35 Geology facts 0.342 N.S.1.36 Science history
facts 1.323 N,S.2.0 Scientific thinking 2.231 0.05 Nuffield Biology Girls3.0 Attitude to school science 1.364 N.S.4.0 Scientific ambition 2.109. 0.05 Nuffield Biology Girls
5.0 Science orientation (S.0.) 1.296 N.S.(1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0)
NON SCIENTIFIC
6.0 Non-science interests6.1 Fine art 0.604 N.S.6.2 Literature 0.596 N.S.
7.0 Interest in solving prob-
1
lems by appeal to authority7.1 Consulting expert 0.879 N.S.7.2 Reading a book 2.487 0.02 Traditional Girls7.3 Asking a teacher 2.554 0.02 Traditional Girls
1 O
-18-
table 15. Comparisons between girls taking Nuffield Chemistryand girls taking Traditional Science.
Nuffield Chemistry Girls N1 = 52 Traditional Girls N2
= 261
Variable SignificanceRatio
P In Favour Of:-
SCIENTIFIC
1.0 Interest in science 4.188 0.001 Nuffield Chemistry Girls1.1 Leisure interest 3.415 0.001 Nuffield Chemistry Girls1.2 As a method 3.384 0.001 Nuffield Chemistry Girls1.3 As facts 3.123 0.01 Nuffield Chemistry Girls
1.31 Physics facts 1.762 N.S.1.32 Biology facts 3.298 0.001 Nuffield Chemistry Girls1.33 Chemistry facts 2.201 0.05 Nuffield Chemistry Girls1.34 Astronomy facts 2.912 0.01 Nuffield Chemistry Girls1.35 Geology facts 1.901 N.S.1.36 Science history
facts 0.326 N.S.2.0 Scientific thinking 2.588 0.01 Nuffield Chemistry Girls3.0 Attitude to school science 2.407 0.02 Nuffield Chemistry Girls4.0 Scientific ambition 3.072 0.01 Nuffield Chemistry Girls
5.0 Science orientation (S.0.) 3.704 0.001 Nuffield Chemistry Girls(1.0 + 2.0 F 3.0)
ON SCIENTIFIC
6.0 Non-science interests6.1 Fine art 0.512 N.S.6.2 Literature 0.148 N,S.
7.0 Interest in solving prob-lems by appeal to authority7.1 Consulting expert 1 0.881 N.S.7.2 Reading a book 0.107 N.S.7.3 Asking a teacher 1.234 N.S.
le
-19-
table 16. Comparisons between girls taking Nuffield Physicsand girls taking Traditional Science.
Nuffield Physics Girls N1 = 39 Traditional Girls N2
= 261
Variable SignificanceRatio
P In Favour Of:-
SCIENTIFIC
1.0 Interest in science 6.716 0.001 Nuffield Physics Girls1.1 Leisure interest 6.423 0.001 Nuffield Physics Girls1.2 As a method 4.286 0.001 Nuffield Physics Girls1.3 As facts 5.065 0.001 Nuffield Physics Girls
1.31 Physics facts 4.415 0.001 Nuffield Physics Girls1.32 Biology facts 1.281 N.S.1.33 Chemistry facts 5.010 0.001 Nuffield Physics Girls1.54 Astronomy facts 5.283 0.001 Nuffield Physics Girls1.35 Geology facts 2.141 0.05 Nuffield Physics Girls1.36 Science history
facts 0.124 N.S.2.0 Scientific thinking 3.651 0.001 Nuffield Physics Girls3.0 Attitude to school science 5.516 0.001 Nuffield Physics Girls4.0 Scientific ambition 5.056 0.001 Nuffield Physics Girls
5.0 Science orientation S.0.) 6.366
.
0.001 Nuffield Physics Girls(1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0)
NON SCIENTIFIC
6.0 Non-science interests6.1 Fine art 2.349 0.02 Traditional Girls6.2 Literature 0.394 N.S.
7.0 Interest in solving prob-lems by appeal to authority7.1 Consulting expert 0.459 N.S.7.2 Reading a book 0.526 N.S.7.3 Asking a teacher 2.351 0.02 Traditional Girls
20
2.l-20-
Examination of tables 4 to 16 shows a number of significant trends,
and some are described below.
Before considering Nuffield and Traditional groups as such, attention
is drawn to differences between attitudes and interests of boys and girls in
the overall sample. The differences are consistent with previous research,
indicating as they do a significantly greater over-all scientific orientation
amongst boys than amongst girls; boys having greater interest, a better attit-
ude to science as a school subject and more ambition to continue further
scientific studies (7). The pattern of boys being more interested in the
content of physics and chemistry and girls in the descriptive subjects
biology, geology and history of science was expected and is also consistent
with previous research (8). The corollary that girls show greater interest in
non-scientific areas such as literature and fine-art was also re-confirmed (9).
The somewhat unexpected absence of significant differences between boys and girls
in interest in science as a method of solving problems or in scientific thinking
kattitude) is noted. Of the three possible ways of solving problems by appeal
to authority; that is by consulting an expert, reading a book or questioning a
teacher, only the latter method proved significantly different between boys and
girls and was in favour of girls.
Turning now to comparisons between Nuffield and Traditional programmes,
table 5 shows highly significant gains by Nuffield pupils in over-all scientific
orientation; including especially significant gains in interest in science as
a method of solving problems, in scientific thinking and in ambition to pursue
further studies of science later. There were less highly signficant gains in
attitudes towards science as a leisure-time activity, but the absence of
significant differences between Nuffield and Traditional pupils in their inter-
ests in the facts of science, either as a whole or for individual disciplines,
is noted with some concern. The implications of this are considered below
(see discussion). Of the two non-science leisure activities, fine art and lit-
erature, only ditferences in interest in the former proved significant with
preference for Fine Art amongst Traditional pupils.
Pupils taking Traditional courses showed significantly greater interest
than Nuffield pupils in solving problems by reading or by asking teachers but
there was no difference between the two groups in preference for solving prob-
lems by consulting experts. The strong preference b Nuffitla.gaj_ls t
-21-
solve problems empirically and for Traditional pupils to do so by appeal to
authoritative sources has urgent educational implications and these are
considered in the discussion.
When each of the three 0-level subjects Biology, Chemistry and
Physics was considered separately, highly contrasted patterns were obtained
from subject to subject. The three programmes were by no means equally
successful in developing significant gains in attitude and interest.
Nuffield Chemistry, it is m.,ted, was most successful, biology less
successful and physics generally unsuccessful in promoting positive
attitudinal changes towards science and science teaching. Nuffield Chemistry
showed significant gains over Traditional chemistry in almost all the
dimensions of scientific attitude and interest except interest in the
factual content of sciences other than physics and chemistry. This lack
of transfer to otner branches of science is of relevance to a general
consideration of the over -all effectiveness of the Nuffield programmes
(see discussicn). Students taking Nuffield Chemistry were significantly less
interested in fine art and literature and showed less willingness to consult
their science teachers on problems than did pupils taking Traditional
programmes.
Pupils taking Nuffield Biology showed no significant gain in over-all
scientific orientation but did gain in terms of interest in science as a
method of investigation, and also in interest in biological facts. There was
no gain however, in interest in other branches of science, Gains in scientific
thinking and in an ambition to study more science later are noted, Nuffield
Biology pupils, however, showed less preference for solving problems by read-
ing or by questioning the teacher than their contemporaries in traditional
courses.
The over-all results for Nuffield Physics showed a significant gain for
Nuffield on only one variable - ambition to study more science later. A greater
interest in the tacts of biology ana geology by students taking traditional
physics is also noted.
22
-22-
This over-all pattern and the pattern for each discipline changed
considerably when boys and girls were considered separately (tables 9 to 16).
The striking difference between tables 9 (boys) and 13 (girls) is of
special significance. With the boys, Nuffield science, in overall impact,
does not show any significant gain over traditional programmes in any of
the twenty variables measured whereas with girls there are significant gains
on eleven of the fourteen science biased attitudinal dimensions (variables
1.0 to 4.0).
Tables 10 and 11 show some gains with boys taking Nuffield Biology
and Chemistry, but Nuffield Physics in the sample studied, seems to have
caused a reverse reaction. There are no effective gains amongst Nuffield Physics
boys except in literary and artistic interests but there are significant
gains by pupils taking traditional programmes in eight of the fourteen
science- biased attitudinal variables including interest in the factual
content of physics itself!
Girls on the other hand seem to have benefited very significantly
and it is the gains made by girls rather than by boys that contribute to
the apparent over-all success of the Nuffield programmes shown in tables
5,6 and 7. The exception is for biology (table 14). More gains in this
subject were made by boys (table 10) than girls (table 14) but both boys and
girls taking Nuffield Biology showed better scientific thinking and greater
ambition to study more science than their counterparts studying Traditional
programmes.
The most dramatic successes were with girls taking Nuffield Chemistry
and Nuffield Physics (tables 15 and 16) with the former making significant
gains on at least eleven out of fourteen science-biased attitudinal dimensions.
The failure, however, to promote gains in interest in the tactual content of
certain branches of science such as physics and geology (by chemistry girls),
biology (by physics girls) and history of science (by both these groups), is
noted with some concern.
2
-23-
DISCUSSION
Seven major conclusions seem to emerge from this study.
1. The most important conclusion appears to be that by 1966 the trial
materials of the Nuffield Science Programmes for 'O' -level G.C.E. had
had only limited success in improving scientific attitudes and interests
of boys. They had marked success, however, in improving the attitudes
of girls.
This finding W2 generally confirmed by analysis of essays and inter-
views. From these qualitative data also emerged the following hypothesis.
Girls taking traditional science courses were subjected to the usual social
pressures working to produce lack of interest in scientific things and
poor attitudes to science (10 - also see data in table 4). For the girls
in the Nuffield Programme many of these traditional influences were counter-
acted by the special interest taken in science by the school authorities.
The dramatic improvements noted in this study seem to be a response by
girls to the flattery, to use the words of one pupil, "of being thought
important enough to be a guinea pig in an experiment in science education",
rather than as a response to the course as such. This hypothesis is
strengthened by the finding that most of the gains were made by girls taking
Nuffield Chemistry or Nuffield Physics, Girls taking Nuffield Biology
made few gains. Biology has always been a popular and well-liked subject
with girls (11). By contrast boys taking Nuffield Biology gained more than
the girls (tables 10 & 14), Boys have always tended to be less interested
in biology than girls. It seems that significant differences were obtained
mainly be groups who had, traditionally, little interest in their science
courses This of course is a most important and worthwhile achievement,
but it cannot be clearly and unambiguously established from this study that
the improvement was due to the Nuffield philosophy and materials. It could
have been due to unusual, special personal attention given by teachers
to relatively indifferent pupils who would not in the ordinary course of
events have been given such close attention by teachers of traditional
courses.
-24-
2. For most groups Nuffield Science courses tended to increase interest in
empiricism and in science as a leisure activity. With the exception
of girls taking Nuffield Physics and Chemistry there was no significant
improvement, however, in interest in the factual content of the sciences
studied. This lack of improved interest in the facts of science was
especially noticeable amongst the boys. It appears as though the Nuffield
philosophy has tended to swing the pendulum a little too far from the
"fact centred" approach to the "problem centred" approach without
'building-in" suitable safe-guards. Pupils interviewed, especially boys,
seemed to feel almost guilty saying they liked the facts included in their
courses. They had been over-trained to show interest in problem-solving
and to be hypercritical of even generally accepted scientific facts.
Perhaps this is a healthy counter to the admitted over-emphasis on
"facts for facts sake" prevalent in past teaching. There is, however, the
danger of increasing cynicism and doubt about the value of our cultural
heritage and hence even of the values of our whole social order if this
objective is over-emphasised at the expense of other objectives. Of course
a certain amount of cynicism is healthy, especially in science; but this
must be developed alongside a respect for past achievement and an under-
standing and appreciation at the vast resource of knowledge that man has
accumulated during his past 30,000 years.
3. Lven where the Nuffield materials did improve interest of some sub-groups
in the factual content of a particular discipline, this interest rarely trans-
ferred to other disciplines. This point is made clear if the following
extracts from the inter- correlation matrices reported in the Appendix are
compared (see table 17),
2f
-25-
table 17. Inter-correlations of Interest in the Factual Content of
Six Branches of Science.
(A) Traditional Pupils
Physics
Biology
Chemistry
Astronomy
Geology
Biology
.073
Chemistry
.695
.214
Astronomy
.287
.077
,235
Geology
.195
.178
.223
.484
ScienceHistory
-.015
.060
-.017
.256
.264
(B) Nuffield Pupils
Physics
Biology
Chemistry
Astronomy
Geology
Biology
.260
Chemistry
.727
.353
Astronomy
.322
n145
.243
Geology
.150
.283
.193
.385
ScienceHistory
.075
.184
.111
.227
.269
With one or two exceptions increases due to Nuffield courses in the interest
correlations between pairs of disciplines were not of any worthwhile magnit-
ude. A particularly disturbing feature is that Nuffield materials were un-
able to significantly overcome the traditionally low correlation between
interest in the content of science subjects and interest in the history of
science. A modern programme of science education should surely have as a
major objective, a developing awareness of how science progresses and how it
builds to contribute to a further understanding of our environment. The
Nuffield trial materials seemed not to have achieved this objective. Similar-
ly there remained the traditionally low correlations between interest in
quantitative science (physics and chemistry) and more descriptive science
21-26-
(biology and geology). A more general criticism, however, is that even
improved interest in one area of scientific fact does not seem to transfer
at all successfully to another area of scientific fact, much less to areas
outside science. The implications for the general educational contributions
of the programmes are obvious.
Transfer of interest in facts, is admittedly more difficult to attain than
transfer of interests in procedure or method which are, after all, common
to most sciences. Nevertheless interviews with pupils and examination of
course materials, revealed little evidence of a genuine attempt at bridge-
building. Physics was taught strictly within a physical "frame of reference"
and so on; and there seemed little emphasis on the unity or universality
of science.
4. Probably even more serious than the lack of transfer of increased interest
from science discipline to science discipline was the existence of a negative
transfer to other areas of the curriculum. Rather too many Nuffield sub-
groups showed significant decline in interest in fine art or literature.
This was true, for example, in the case of many of the Nuffield Chemistry
pupils (table 7). This suggests that the relative significance and place
of science in our general culture may have been over-emphasised at the
expense of courses stressing other equally important values.
5. The failure of the Nuffield Physics trial materials to improve the interests
and attitudes of boys (table 12) requires further discussion. The reaction
of the 170 boys in the sample was negative. At first one is inclined to
suspect the sample, but while this was small it was fairly representative
in that the pupils came from four widely separated schools and there were
seven different classes each taught by a different master. If this sample
is at all representative then the trial editions of the-Nuffield Physics,
as they were presented to boys in this study, require re-assessment. Not
only did they fail to imcrease relevant scientific attitudes and interests
but t1ey actually caused pupils to be less favourably disposed towards many
aspects, than equivalent pupils in traditional courses. Further increased
interest in literature and fine art, at first thought a most welcome
positive gain, represented more a retreat from science than an advance
towards the Arts. The totally reverse influence of this course on the small
2-27-
0Iat
"numbers of girls in this study has already been noted and may be explained
by a response to improved status as discussed above. It may well be that
these contrasted and disturbing patterns would disappear with a more thorough
investigation of larger populations using the final version of the materials.
Nevertheless there seems sufficient evidence here to suggest there may be
fundamental weaknesses in the conceptual basis of the Nuffield Physics
programme. Information from interviews provides some hypotheses about
the Physics course for further study. These hypotheses are as follows:
(a) there is an over-emphasis on empirical investigation at the
expense of other objectives
(b) the course is too hard for the average G.C.E. pupil.
(c) concepts which provide unsuitable material for problem-
solving or inquiry teaching, are forced into "problem settings".
Intelligent pupils therefore claim the course is "pseudo-
scientific" and less able pupils find it long-drawn-out, boring
and difficult.
(d) the sequential development is too rigid and there is in-
sufficient opportunity for individualized learning.
(e) the course while intellectual, delightful and challenging
for professional physicists is too academic and unreal for
the average schoolboy. It is unrelated to the pupil's personal
social environment.
It should be further emphasised that these ideas are presented only as
hypotheses for further testing, but with the worrying findings of the
Dainton Report at hand, it would be tragic to introduce courses presented
as models of curriculum excellance, which have the effect of increasing
the drift from the sciences. It is imperative that the reasons for the
data in table 12 be identified and cointeracted as quickly as possible.
6. An emphasis on "inquiry" or "problem solving" and "direct experience"
is an important aspect of modern science curricula. Inquiry teaching is
an essential element ithe development of divergent thinking, creativity
and lasting learning. There was some suggestion however, from interviews
and observation of lessons that this has been over-emphasised or interpreted
too narrowly by some teachers using the Nuffield trial materials, and perhaps
-28-
even by the authors, especially in Physics.
As discussed in 2 above, evidence from this study suggests that the
Nuffield trial materials gave an increased interest in solving problems
by direct experience. There is, however, a danger that methods other than
direct experience will become held in contempt even when empiricism is
impracticable or inappropriate in a learning situation, The very frequent
decline in interest shown by several Nuffield sub-groups in this study in
solving problems by consulting authorative sources such as books and
journals or by simply questioning the teacher, is alarming. An important
objective of science teaching should surely be to train pupils in data
retrieval so they can quickly and critically gather together information
already know to science which may provide answers to problems. The lack
of willingness to solve problems by questioning the teacher is particularly
disturbing. It points to teachers as being discarded as useful resources
in the classroom with a subsequent weakening of those teacher-pupil bonds
that are essential for a good classroom climate, One pupil commented
"everytime I ask our science teacher a question he answers by asking me
another - so I don't talk much to him now and I don't like him watching me
in the laboratory". This is a fair comment and a warning, "Discovery"
in the classroom doesn't necessarily always mean "empirical discovery"
by direct experience but many teachers, especially physics teachers,
tended to teach the Nuffield trial materials only in this way,
.7. An important aspect of the results is that in spite of some of the weak-
nesses and problems considered above, the over-all effect of the Nuffield
materials has been to improve scientific thinking (table 5 variable 2.0).
This gain was achieved in the sample studied by both boys and girls taking
the Nuffield courses in Biology and by girls taking each of the three
Nuffield sciences. This finding, incidentally, is in general terms,
consistent with recent work by Laughton and Wilkinson (12). These workers
compared the scientific thinking of 233 pupils.taking Nuffield and trad-
itional programmes for G.C.E. in English Grammar Schools and found no
significant difference between the groups for the older boys, but highly
significant differences for the older girls in favour of Nuffield.
29
-29-
The tentative nature of conclusions from this study must be emphasised.
They are tentative for a number of reasons. Firstly the population,
especially of girls taking Nuffield Chemistry and Physics, was small.
Secondly the work was completed in 1966 when pupils were using only
trial editions. While basic philosophy remains unchanged there have
been many changes of specific content in the final editions of the
materials published since 1966. Thirdly, the pupils tested were amongst
the first to be taught these materials and the teachers were learning
almost as much as the pupils. Many of the results of this study must
have been determined by the way teachers interpreted the content and
intent of the Nuffield programme. Fourthly the attitude/interest tests
used in this study were not specifically designed to test for achievement
of the precise objectives of the Nuffield programmes. More specific
instruments should be developed to provide measures of more closely
specified affective variables.
All this report can do is raise questions and problems for further
investigation by subsequent workers. These workers should be able to
use more reliable samples after the courses have become reasonably well
established. They should then be able to develop more precise instruments
to measure the variables concerned.
-30-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In 1966 The Nuffield Foundation made available a Special Study Grant for an
investigation into aspects of the Nuffield Science teaching programme in
England. This support is gratefully acknowledged. The direct and personal
assistance of Mr. Brian Young is deeply appreciated. The staff and various
people working on the Science Teaching Project itself, both at Project
Headquarters and in schools, were most generous with their time and help.
I am particularly grateful to Professor K.W. Keohane, Mr. John Maddox,
Dr. G. Van Praagh and Mr. Peter Kelly who gave valuable professional advice.
I would also like to thank the University of London Institute of
Education for welcoming me to the staff as a Visiting Scholar and for
extending professional assistancc, In particular Mrs. D. Penfold, Dr.J. Clarke
and Dr. D. Dale of the Institute gave direct professional assistance and I am
very grateful to them. Mr. Richard Barnes, also of the London Institute,
administered many of the tests and interviews and this most valuable help
is gratefully acknowledged.
Some of the statistical calculations were undertaken by computer
with the assistance. of staff of the National Foundation for Educational
Research and Mr. Brian E. Cooper of the Science Research Council Atlas
Computer Laboratory. Later, in Australia, all statistical calculations were
finalized and checked with the assistance of Mr. Robert Watts and Miss Anne
Watts and the help of these people and institutions is acknowledged and
greatly Appreciated.
Finally I would like to thank all the principals, teachers and
pupils who answered questions and undertook tests. Their willing and kindly
cooperation made it possible to complete this study.
3/
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
I. Inter-correlations of twenty variables measured in the survey:
A. Pupils taking Traditional Science
B. Pupils taking Nuffield Science.
II. Means and Standard Deviations of nineteen variables for all pupils
and for the following sub-groups in the survey:
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
All Pupils
All Traditional
All Nuffield
All Boys
All Girls
Traditional Boys
Nuffield Boys
Traditional Girls
Nuffield Girls
All Nuffield Biology
All Nuffield Chemistry
All Nuffield Physics
Nuffield Biology Boys
Nuffield Chemistry Boys
Nuffield Physics Boys
Nuffield Biology Girls
Nuffield Chemistry Girls
Nuffield Physics Girls
32
Science
Orientation
(5.0)
Interest In
Science(1.0)
Leisure
Interest=
As A Method
(1.2)
As Facts
leta
(1.3)
Physics
t41
Facts (1.31)
Biology
Facts (1.32)
Chemistry
Facts (1.33)
Astronomy
Facts (1.34)
Geology
Facto (1.35)
Science
History Dula
(1.36)
Fine Art(6.1)
Literature
(6.2)
Consulting
Expert(7.1)
Reading A
Book (7.2)
Asking A
Teacher(73)
Scientific
Thinking
(2.0)
Attitude To
School
Science(3.0)
Scientific
Ambition +
(4.0)
Sex
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
aa
.._
.... 14
470
00
00
40
00
04
C00
0000
-0 .7
4.4
4 ..
0 41
1NC
044
10
O..
PI 0
H
9 d 4.0
CO
4 0
0 4
00 44 -
170
00
,,
Inter-Correlations of 20 Variables - Traditional Science.
v-
oTe%
,ff
043
.1.c
NA
R,,,,,,
,..,,r,
'..,
a,..
.4.
aS.
Et
.47
2 C
s-e
....,
gdrz
citd
24-J
>ad
0 >
a54
4,-4
,-.
S.
01.
4o 4.', a
n.-1
4.H
110
003
H0
00 O
W00
%1D
54 -
4 4
461
4134
,4.\
0 -,
H 0
E -
04
4.H
+0
0 H
141
0.4
0 N
7) 0
>.0
oo
0 0
.0
oo ..fm 0
...
CP.
MA
0 H
.0 0
415
.0 4
3co
ela
qlt)
H H
H ,f
)H
4.0
0 X
.1C
.44.
44
41 4
4C
I 44
.1: 1
440
440
=',-
, Wo-
1 `4
-00
14
.2 N
b1)L 0 V
-41 V. 00 alp
IX 1
4
..:4 b0
00
40 4
-4r1
0 K
\.X
0C
O 0
Cs-
44 E
-4 4
.4
0 14 ,- 4
01-
1 0
." -
rt
C -
X0
00..I
.,.,
0 .0
N0
E ..
..
. E-..g
0, (
Vli 0
f -I
47 0
. ".
01 0
04-
, = - 0
.147
0 4
..
. .
Hi
4..4
Cr.
0 0u..
0 H
O..1
.0X
Ca
6-7
am
a.. w
.860
.785
.598
.661
.583
.356
.706
.367
.281
.061
.183
-.116
.142
.187
.000
.631
.889
.557
.2d2
.860a
.822
.799
.743
.585
.352
.677
.472
.401
.167
-.100
-.013
253
.184
.002
.457
.579
.448
.221
.785
.822
.400
.509
.587
.118
.6=5
.313
.178
-.001
-.293
-.199
179
.173
.074
.343
.632
.530
.394
.598
.799
.400
.423
.256
.328
.352
.270
.261
.052
.058
.108
177
.023
-.156
.350
.302
.229
.021
.661
.744
.509
.423
.612
.462
.655
.647
.641
.482
.042
.101
277
.307
.145
.405
.444
.290
.083
.583
.585
.588
.256
.612
ME
MO
.073
.695
.287
-.015
-.273
-.258
.182
.142
.058
.269
.484
.417
.414
.355
.352
.118
.328
.462
.073e
.214
.077
.178
.060
.23o
.194
.150
.220
.134
.200
.286
.151
-.258
.706
.677
.656
.352
.655
.214
.235
.223
-.017
-.251
-.187
.155
.125
.050
.315
.618
.535
.294
.367
.472
.313
.270
.647
.287
.077
.235- .484
.256
.056
.041
.187
.212
.072
.265
.181
.096
.079
.281
.401
.178
.260
.641
.194
.178
.223
.484
---
.26%
.124
.120
.129
.172
.091
.250
.090
.004
.017
.061
.167
-.001
.053
.481
-.015
.06o-.017
.256
.264
.221
.358
.180
.169
.094
.146
-.082
-.151
-.173
-.183-.100
-.293
.058
.041
-.273
.229
-.251
.056
.124
.221
.440
.158
.107
.141
.006
-.256
-.311
-.439
-.116
-.013
-.199
.108
.101
-.258
.194
-.187
.041
.120
.368
.440
.153
.331
.133
.115
-.243
-.303
-.422
.141
.253
.179
.177
.277
.182
.150
.155
.187
.129
.180
.168
.153
---
.202
.376
.077
.021
.021
-.016
.187
.184
,173
.023
.307
.142
.220
.125
.212
.172
.169
.107
.331
.202
=m
0..364
.180
.126
.062
-.038
.000
.002
.074-.156
.145
.058
.134
.060
.072
.091
.094
.141
.135
.376
.364
-.058
.022
.034
-.145
.631
.457
.343
.360
.405
.269
.200
.315
.265
.250
.146
.006
.115
.077
.180
-.058
.413
.266
.052
.889
.579
.632
.302
.444
.484
.285
.618
.181
.090-.083
-.256
-.243
.020
.126
.022
.413",
.553
.206
.557
.448
.530
.229
.290
.417
.151
.535
.095
.004
-.151
-.311
-.303
.021
.062
-.034
.266
.553
---
-.355
.222
.221
.394
.021
.083
.414
-.258
.294
.079
.017
-.173
-.439
-.422-.016
-.038
-.145
.052
.206
-.355
= Biserial in favour of taking Science in 6th Form.
= Biserial in favour of boys.
31
Science
Orientation
(5.0)
Interest In
Science(1.0)
Leisure
Interest (1.1)
As A Method
(1.2)
As Facts
(1.31
Physics
4A)
Facts(1.31)
Biology
Facts(1.32)
Chemistry
Facts(1.33)
Astronomy
Facts(1.34)
3eology
Facts(1.35)
Science
History Facts
(1.36)
Fine 4-t(6.1)
Literature
(6.')
Consulting
Expert(7.1)
Reading A
Book (7.2)
Aaking A
Tencher(7.3)
thinking
(2.0)
Attitude To
School
Science(3.))
Scientific
Ambition
(4.0)
Sex
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
Inter-Correlations of 20 Variables - Nuffield Science.
.51
.....
In...
-.
O1.
1+
40
'...1
11-
\K
\K
\K
lK
l0
113.
;4.
00
+,-
1=
":V
,),
4-C
4 N
+I
a-
4.44
.5C
O.-
La /-
1E
r4
r-1
r-.1
4-1
0r1
O-
4Ir
l15
011)
44 0
O 0
a 0
0 C
Oa
.4
0 1-
IV
, -1,
-0
...--
',....
-+11
,.....
.S.
1.,
.1..1
..-.
.tIC
K:-
t.*r.
CI
.221
.r 0
I-00
I*0
w0 c.
ae
,-,
..,0
-44
0 0
.4. ,
4a
r-1
C C
^L
C^
0 4.
ars
,44)
05rI
V)
0000
CO
O4^
0 L
.-1
V: .
.0 ..
-,C
Y^
44 0
..0
.64
,-..
a e
00
0 0
IO 0
+V
NI.
K \
0) .0
4 .1
-,5
a-,
8. 1
>1-
1 .I,
01,1
,0.
,-,
<U
NS
Q,
'CS
+' 0
K \
0 0
0r1
0 0
VI -
.4 0
.44
...I
4, .4
4.e
l 4.2
> 0
0 0
0 0
44 0
0 0
ra 0
00
4..,
0 0.
0 0
O1
I4-
, 0..1
.0X
LOS
C 0
,-1
VC
5.4
0.4
.ez
...ro
..c.
5 5
0 5
0 ...
1 5
,-I 5
0-1
\O0
X01
05
5 V
--0
.0 N
4./ 0
0\
0 E
-1-
044
0.-.
I-1
up..
.4 -
Icj
....
.eg
..-.
Cy
8s,
01 D
.t)
[..
4 8.
04r.
85=
40W
.-,
.-7,
-,01
.185
014F
-1,-
-U
1E-1
- 41
n -
in .<
4.-
u)
...
.890
.840
.636
.688
.634
.433
.745
.373
.223
.152 -.168 -.120 .176
.244
.019
.699
.909
.617
.020
.890
"'
.861
.802
.770
.634
.463
.711
.448
.355
.254 -.108 -.013 .274
.303
.023
.528
.66/
.494
.039
.840
.361
---
.476
.579
.624
.251
.682
.325
.200
.104 -.242 -.154 .23o
.302
.080
.468
.715
.547
.202
.636
.802
.476
.437
.307
.368
.389
.273
.200
.112 -.002
.022 .192
.146 -.153
.393
.389
.285 -.075
.688
.769
.579
.43
.671
.601
.710
J.35
.5?4
.506
.035
.134 .272
.314
.173
.441
.507
.353 -.075
,633
.634
.624
.307
.671
.260
.727
.322
.150
.075 -.223 -.173 .150
.190
.075
.369
.548
.414
.221
.433
.463
.251
.368
.602
.260
.353
.145
.283
.184
.193
.208 .191
.227
.175
.236
.331
.291 -.270
.743
.711
.682
.389
.710
.727
.353 - .243
.193
.111 -.198 -.131 .195
.237
.088
.450
.668
.551
.123
.373
.448
.325
.273
.585
.322
.145
.243
---
.385
.227 -.008
.102 .169
.133
.050
.252
.245
.066 -.032
.223
.355
.200
.200
.574
.150
.283
.193
.385
---
.269
.148
.182 .169
.225
.121
.143
.069 -.008 -.135
.152
.254
.104
.112
.507
.075
.184
.111
.227
.269
.206
.341 .121
.105
.130
.145
.019 -.007
-.168
...108 -.242 -.002
.035 -.223
.193 -.197 -.008
.148
.206
.403 .107
.034
.068 -.015 -.224 -.242 -.289
-.120
-.018 -.154
.022
.134 -.173
.208 -.130
.102
.182
.341
.433
---
.209
.206
.168
.026 -.226 -.139 -.373
.176
.274
.230
.192
.272
.150
.191
.194
.169
.169
.191
.107
.209 ---
.324
.408
.111
.066
.076
.039
.244
.303
.302
.146
.314
.190
.227
.237
.183
.225
.105
.034
.206
.324
.352
.147
.161
.109-.034
.019
.023
.080 -.153
.173
.075
.125
.038
.050
.121
.130
.068
.168
.403 .52
--- -.026
.031
.042 -.073
.699
.528
.468
.393
.441
.369
.236
.450
.252
.143
.145 -.015
.026
.111
.147 -.026
---
.525
.367 -.067
.909
.66?
.715
.389
.507
.548
.331
.668
.245
.069
.019 -.224 -.226 .066
.162
.031
.527 - .625
.033
.617
.494
.547
.285
.353
.414
.290
.551
.o66 -.00E -.005 -.242 -.189
.076
.109
.042
.367
.625
--- -.155
.020
.039
.202 -.075 -.075
.221 -.270
.123 -.082 -.135 -.135 -.289 -.378 .039-.034 -.073 -.067
.033 -.155 -
Biserial in favour of taking Science in 6th Form.
= ?iserial in favour
of boys.
32
-33-
-
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
Means and Standard Deviations of nineteen variables for allpupils and for various sub-groups
in the survey.
For identification of variables see table 3.
Vari-
All
Pupils
All
Traditional
All
Nuffield
All
Boys
All
Girls
Traditional
BoyS
able
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S,D.
Mean
S.D.
1.0
72.927
17.917
71.245
17,113
74.410
18.292
74,877
17.972
69.994
17.220
74.863
16.928
1,1
22.462
8.497
21.647
8.195
23.116
8.682
24.457
8.256
19.263
7,884
24.733
7.731
1.2
27.710
8.236
26.751
8,214
28,479
8.179
27,633
8.075
27.832
8.495
26.912
7.782
1.3
22.846
5.269
22.826
5.037
22.862
5.451
22.829
5.489
22.873
4.899
23.225
5.266
1.31
21.051
8.214
20,612
8.051
21.404
8.331
23.073
7.915
17.811
7.633
23.797
7.731
1.32
23.881
8.844
23.905
8.799
23.862
8.886
22.061
9.042
26.798
7.672
21.737
8.778
1.33
21.253
9.305
20.698
8.959
21.699
9.557
22.759
9.286
18.839
8.822
23.218
8.941
1.34
25.907
8.162
25.899
8.359
25.913
8.007
25.874
8.130
25.960
8.223
26.53o
8.094
1.35
24.991
7.607
25.328
7.528
24.721
7.664
24.568
7.84o
25.669
7.172
25,453
7.818
1.36
19.312
9.651
19.832
9.999
18.894
9.348
18.101
9.606
21.252
9.413
18.182
10.167
2.0
22.719
7.826
21.833
7.463
23.429
8.040
22.743
7.840
22.679
7.810
22.204
7.589
3.0
11 864
20.588
10.236
20.423
13.171
20.641
13.865
21.000
'8.656
19.506
14.263
20.458
4.o
1.650
0.477
1.718
Q.450
1.596
0.491
1.552
0.498
1.807
0.395
1.565
0.497
5.o
107.529
39.604
103.304
37.631
110.921
40.832
111.393
40.526
101.333
37.294
111.295
38.294
6,1
16.104
8.779
16.910
8.828
15.456
8.692
13.562
7.931
20.178
8.541
13.204
7.531
6.2
21.302
7.839
21.698
7.896
20.984
7.785
18.828
7.308
25.268
6.993
18.512
7.058
7.1
20.445
6.947
20.447
6.922
20.443
6.972
20.517
7.197
20.329
6.531
20.340
7.292
7.2
20.613
6.969
21.317
7.074
20.047
6,837
20.335
6.988
21.057
6.922
21.063
7.036
7.3
17.198
7.410
18.209
7,125
16.387
7.538
16.458
7.498
18.384
7.114
17.225
7.127
-34-
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
Means and Standard Deviations of nineteen variables for all pupils and forvarious sub-groups
in the survey (continued):-7For'identification of variables see table 3.
Vari-
able
Nuffield
Boys
Traditional
Girls
Nuffield
Girls
All Nuffield
Biology
All Nuffield
Chemistry
All Nuffield
Physics
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
1.0
74.885
18.594
67.295
16.458
73.348
17.593
71.888
17.928
79.077
15.424
72.493
20.527
1.1
24.289
8.562
18.276
7.324
20.491
8.386
20.940
8.550
26-.086
7.414
22.579
9.221
1.2
28.070
8.224
26.575
8.671
29.395
8.019
28.52o
8.204
29.344
7.246
27.517
8.973
1.3
22.589
5.613
22.391
4.746
23.471
5.030
22.396
5.256
23.692
t4.825
22.541
6.181
1.31
22.634
8.000
17.134
6.88o
18.652
8.417
19.660
8.272
23.072
7.683
21.727
8.691
1.32
22.258
9.202
26.272
8.208
27.452
6.912
25.864
7.901
23.072
8.776
22.301
9.677
1.33
22.481
9.488
17.946
8.147
19.948
9.49
20.436
9.645
23.855
8.685
20.928
9.977
1.34
25.477
8.134
25.211
8.602
26.891
7.645
24.264
7.764
26.851
7.685
26.894
8.335
1.35
24.032
7.814
25.192
7.211
26.262
7.09
24.512
7.702
25.973
7.485
23.646
7.654
1.36
18.051
9.259
21.632
9.509
20 481
9.293
19.176
9.321
18.787
9.622
18.670
9.121
2.0
23.070
7.980
21.429
7.317
24.233
8.136
23.696
8.053
23.833
7.507
22.684
8.542
3.0
13.623
21.340
5.839
19.492
12.157
18.995
11.724
20.728
16.977
18.030
10.876
22.569
4.o
1.545
0.499
1.885
0.320
1.710
0.455
1.604
0.490
1.602
0.491
1.579
0.495
5.0
111.453
41.862
94.579
34.930
109.729
38.49'
107.3O840.261
119.887
34.604
105.761
45.911
6.1
13.779
8.164
20.958
8.359
19.210
8.68
15.848
8.535
15.113
9.082
15.349
8.479
6.2
19.019
7.457
25.176
7.280
25.381
6.636
21.996
7.76o
19.552
7.749
21.287
7.666
7.1
20.623
7.145
20.563
6.506
20.038
6.566
19.864
7.355
21.272
6.639
20.258
6.792
7.2
19.894
6.929
21.594
7.117
20.391
6.628
19.980
6.527
21.403
6.243
18.694
7.52o
7.3
15.994
7.685
19.284
6.979
17.267
7.138
16.520
7.511
16.914
6.867
15.670
8.199
-35-
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
Means and Standard Deviations of nineteen variables for all pupils and for various sub-groups
in the survey:(continued): -For"identification of variables:see table 3.
Nuffield
Biology Boys
Nuffield
Chethistry
Boys
Nuffield
Physics Boys
Nuffield
Biology Girls
Nuffield
Chemistry
Girls
Nuffield
Physics Girls
Vari-
able
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
1.0
75.657
18.069
79.610
15.389
69.591
20.543
67.74o
16.895
77.346
15.560
85.128
15.104
1.1
23.931
8.288
27.284
6.978
21.588
9.263
17.647
7.598
22.192
7.517
26.897
7.766
1.2
28.878
7.912
29.024
7.304
26.500
9.090
28.126
8.530
30.385
7.024
31.949
6.962
1.3
22.771
5.694
23.361
4.729
21.682
6.229
21.983
4.717
24.770
5.020
26.282
4.347
1.31
22.351
8.053
24.120
6.959
21.300
8.679
16,698
7.486
19.423
8.795
23.590
8.605
1.32
25.420
8.768
21.024
8.361
21.047
9.777
26.353
6.825
29.731
6.544
27.77o
7.047
1.33
22.970
9.612
24.681
8.175
19.918
10.035
17.647
8.918
21.173
9.779
25.333
8.517
1.34
23.87o
8.117
26,308
7.694
25.888
8.438
24.698
7.366
28.615
7.458
31.282
6.274
1.35
23.641
7.841
25.568
7.542
22.806
7.849
25.471
7.462
27.289
7.212
27.308
5.454
1.36
18,152
9.671
18.077
9 153
17.947
9.092
20.303
8.824
21,096
10.784
21.821
8.669
2.0
23.970
7.928
23.603
7.341
21.847
8.508
23.395
8.211
24.577
8.055
26.333
7.791
.0
14.443
21.991
18.219
17.525
8.424
23.185
8.731
18.886
12.942
19.207
21.564
15.912
4.o
1.42o
0.495
1.580
0.495
1.606
4.901
1.807
0.397
1.673
0.474
1.462
0.505
5.0
'14.084
41.708
121.432
34.227
99.506
45.956
99.849
37.376
114.865
35.676
133.026
34.741
6.1
12.634
7.188
13.521
8.662
14.918
8.262
19.387
8.526
20.289
8.537
17.231
9.247
6.2
18.695
7.281
17.776
7.24o
20.506
7.587
25.630
6.577
25.327
6.471
24.692
7.142
7.1
19.840
7.673
21.763
6.589
20,094
7.154
19.891
7.020
19;673
6.609
20.974
4.928
7.2
20.206
6.568
21.379
6.156
18.177
7.559
19.731
6.499
21.481
6.581
20.949
7.000
7.3
15.840
7.828
16.610
6.695
15.50o
8.458
17.269
7.104
17.904
7.381
16.410
7.007
I
(1) Dowdeswell, W.H.;
Halliwell, H.F.;
Van Praagh, G. and
Wenham, E.J.
-36-
REFERENCES
The Nuffield Foundation Science
Teacher Project.
I: Biology 11-16
II: Chemistry 11-16
III: Physics 11-16
The Schoci Science Review
Vol. 48, No. 165, March 1967
pp. 323-346.
(2) A number of local Education Authorities was involved because pupils
in the survey were from several counties.
(3) The' Nuffield Foundation Special Study Grants 1966
Nuffield House, London. 1965.
(4) Meyer, G.R.
(5) Meyer, G.R.
(6) Op. Cit.
Factors Associated With Secondary
School Pupils Interest In Science
Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy.
University of London Institute of
Education. June 1959.
A Teat Of Interests
Milton, Queensland. Jacaranda Press
1969.
(7) Many workers have demonstrated that boys like science more than girls.
Some references include:-
Pritchard, R.A. "The Relative Popularity of Secondary
School Subjects At Various Ages".
British Journal of Educational Psychol-
sly, Vol. 5, 1935, pp. 157-179; 229-241
Rallison, R.
(8) Meyer, G.R.
(9) Op. Cit.
(10) Op. Cit.
(11) British Association For The
Advancement of Science.
Meyer., G:R:
(12) Laughton, W.H. and
Wilkinson, W.J.
-37-
39
"The Scientific Interests of Senior
School Children". .
British Journal of Educational
psychology.
Vol. 9, 1939, pp. 117-129.
"Factors Accompanying The Scientific
Interest Of A Selected Group of
English Secondary Pupils"
The Australian Journal of Education.
Vol. 5, Nos. 1 & 2.
April 1961; July 1961 pp. 27-40 &
105-115.
Research Committee, Biological
Sciences in British Schools, 1953:
Report presented by a Research
Committee of the British Association
for the Advancement of Science at the
Annual Meeting held in Belfast,
September 3-10, 1952.
The Advancement of Science.
Vol. 10, No. 81. 1953.
"Secondary Biology Teaching In New
South Wales". The Australian Journal
of Science.
Vol. 18, No. 6; June 1956. pp.182-188
Pupils Attitudes To Science Teaching.
Education in Science.
.No. 26, February, 1968. pp. 31-33.